Talk:Roman–Persian Wars/GA1

GA Review
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Roman–Persian Wars/GA1. This discussion is now closed. Please do not edit the review page.

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 3, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Refer to second opinion
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass


 * 1) In some cases like Syria, Iran, Azerbaijan the article links to modern countries which their boundaries differ with what was in the past. Can't we use more correct terms such as Levant, Greater Iran, Aturpatakan.
 * These terms are used by modern scholars. Farrokh, for instance, speaks about the "Azerbaijani forests", and "Syria" does not link to the modern country. Wherever clarification is needed, as you asked for Marc Antony in 36 BC, I'll do my best to provide it. I'll check also the Iran linking.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have I linked somewhere present-day Iran and I miss it? I see a link of the Iranian empires, but I cannot find a wikilinking of Iran. Again I may just miss it.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can link to Persian empire. Unfortunately there isn't any article which show the whole of Azerbaijan. We have two article one of them shows Azerbaijan Republic and the other one shows the Iranian section of Azabaijan. Thus I prefer to write Aturpatakan(Azarbaijan).-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Wikipedia's article is "Atropatene", and this is the term I also see used in scholarly books; Aturpatakan in Google Book related with Mark Antony gives almost no results.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Please clarify this sentence:With both empires preoccupied by barbarian threats from the north, a largely peaceful period followed, interrupted only by two brief wars, the first in 421-422, and the second in 440. I think you mean First and second invasion of the Huns. In 5th century Hephthalites and Kidarites invaded to north-eastern boundaries of Sassanids. If so it's better to use invasion of the Huns,Huna, Uar, confederations of of steppe warriors or Eurasian nomads of Migration Period instead. My suggestion is this:At this time northern territories of Roman empire were occupied by invasion of Eurasian nomads while Persian eastern borders were threatened by Hephthalites.
 * No, I do not mean that. If you go to the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars article you will see that I mean two mainly religious wars. Per WP:SS I did not go into details here. Information can and will be found in the relevant article.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean when you say  barbarian threats?-- Seyyed(t-c) 17:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is something indeed needing clarification. I'll check the sources.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, my mistake; I thought you referred to the two brief Roman-Sassanid wars, and I missed your point. Yes, I think your phrasing is fine. I'll incorporate it.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) All parts of the article have sources, but according to References, some part of the article is based on the Primary sources. For example In 298, however, Galerius crushed the Persians in battle, capturing the Persian treasury and the royal harem, an utter disgrace for the Persian monarch. The resulting peace settlement saw the Romans gain the area between the Tigris and the Greater Zab. The Roman victory was the most decisive for many decades: all the territories that had been lost, all the debatable lands, and control of Armenia were now in Roman hands
 * This is inaccurate. Look better at note 33 of the section you provide. Both primary and secondary sources are provided, and this is done throughout the article. After all, such a long discussion had taken place in Pericles' FAR, when a faced such a criticism again. I invite you to read the relevant discussion. Anyway, the article in question faces no such problem. Per References as you say, all citations include secondary sources!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right. I missed Frye's name.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You should add sources in few cases.-- Seyyed(t-c) 03:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass


 * 1) I think it's important to mention Trajan captured Susa, winter capital of Partians, in 116AD.
 * In most of the sources (doing a googlebooking, maybe you have more material), I do not see this distinction between summer and winter capital. All of them give Ctesiphon as capital, unless Ctesiphon was threatened or captured. Maybe this happened during the Achaemenid period? I see Rawlinson says that Susa was captured in 116 AD, but I do not see further recent scholarly sources verifying that. Do you have more sources? Are we sure Susa was captured?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Can you check these two articles:ARSACIDS and MILITARY ARCHITECTURE OF PARTHIA UNDER THE ARSACIDS-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First one says nothing about Susa; second one is strictly about architecture.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Due to the fact that the issue of this article belongs to Classical  and Late Antiquity era, there should be a section which discuss about historiography and historical sources.
 * Primary historical sources are provided. I am not sure such a section is necessary. It will make the article longer without an obvious reason. After all this is not a source research essay like Geatrex-Lieu's work. Such analysis could possibly take place in Byzantine-Sassanid Wars and Roman-Parthian Wars articles.
 * I think it's necessary. You can use some sources like A Textbook of Historiography which includes several chapters about Greco-Roman historiography and references to Sassanid ones. There are some other sources likeRoman Historiography, Historiography at the End of the Republic: Provincial Perspectives, etc. Therefor there are few sources which discuss about Iranian historiography I propose using Encyclopedia Iranica:PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD and EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the article is just 77.5 kb. Thus you can add a section without making a long article.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I created such a section, although it is almost impossible to summarize the historiography of 1000 years in two paragraphs. The section needs improvements of course; not yet perfect.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. Thank you for your work so far.-- Seyyed(t-c) 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion: (as requested)
From a first complete read through;
 * General, there are lots of short sentences. This means that it is sometimes difficult to read.
 * Then occassionally a very long sentence (for example; Climax: ...The war initially went the Persians' way, partly because of Phocas' brutal repression and the succession crisis that ensued as the general Heraclius sent his nephew Nicetas to attack Egypt, enabling his son Heraclius the younger to claim the throne in 610 AD....)and (Aftermath ...The Roman Empire was also severely affected, with its financial reserves exhausted by the war, the Balkans now largely in the hands of the Slavs,[87] Anatolia devastated by repeated Persian invasions and the empire's hold on its recently regained territories in the Caucasus, Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt loosened by many years of Persian occupation...) A lot of detailed important information which to me at least becomes difficult because of the sentence length and structure.
 * I rephrased, but I also believe that a copy-editing is needed. But these things need patience! I've asked for it and I am now waiting!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is excellent news, maybe the GA nomination was then a bit premature, the article after a copyedit etc would have less things to do for a GA. Edmund Patrick –  confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not a matter of "prematureness". As I have said from the first moment, my intention was and is to bring this article to FAC, and for this nomination was and is prepared the article; not GA. After all, as I also stressed, the article has already reached A-Class status through the MILHIST A-Class review, which is independent from GAC. I agreed to nominate the article for GA status, because I was kindly asked to do it, and because I do believe that reviewes are always good news for an encyclopedic article. The prose is not yet, of course, "brilliant" as FA criteria demand, but I still have the impression that it is good enough, even as it stands now for GA status, implementing, of course, your suggestions as well. After all, during the MILHIST A-Class review, in which some of the most experiences users and FA nominators of Wikipedia participated (such as Cla68 and others), nobody was critical towards the prose. I repeat: I know it is not yet "brilliant", but I do believe it is "good". And I must also stress that Ceoil has already copy-edited the first 2-3 sections of the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many many names, some of which are repeated (justifiably so in historic terms) later in the article, by which point I cannot remember what / who, she / he was. I am not sure what to do about it but an idea is maybe to refer to people by their titles/job description to avoid confusion and to avoid having to ctrl-f to find out who a specific person is. Not the best answer but is there a way of overcoming the problem? I am open to suggestions, this article is not the only one to have this difficulty.
 * I had exactly the same problem. However I think we can neglect this issue in this review.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure there is a solution to this problem for such an article. In MILHIST review the issue was raised, and it was proposed to name only the most important commanders. This was done! Many "secondary" names were removed. But it is inevitable to face some a problem in such a summary article.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it is a problem that continually accures in any article of this depth. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dating: some years have AD after them some not, it needs to be consistent.
 * I knew the problem, and I had in mind to take care of it before FAC. I hope now there is more consistency.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Republic vs Parthia ...With the civil war over, Julius Caesar elaborated plans for a campaign against Parthia.. please explain why elaborated is used here? You can elaborate something e.g. plan in minute great detail with a lot of effort, thought etc, but I think ... Julius Caesar's complex and detailed plans for a campaign against Parthia reads easier and gives a slightly better understanding. Roman Empire vs Parthia ...Gaius Caesar and Phraataces worked out a rough compromise in 1 AD... rough is a value statement word surely ...Gaius Caesar and Phraataces worked out a compromise in 1 AD... explains what they did. Unless the "rough" can be referenced of course. War for the Caucasus Khosrau I died early the next year, defeated after so many victories.[72] does this mean he died in battle or that he died after so so many victories. If so what relevance is that?
 * Choice and usage of words; (just two examples on choice and one on words), but a copyedit might be very useful. There is an amazing amount of information within this article alone, and care needs to be taken not to cloud the issues / facts with over-complicated wording or choice of words.
 * "Rough removed. Why "elaborated" is wrong? I mean in the sentence "prepared but not implemented the plans". I am not a native English speaker, so am I missing something? And "after so many victories" emphasizes on the contrast. Despite his repetitive successes, he died finally defeated and humiliated.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although "elaborated" is correct in usage today it is rarely used in that sense. To "elaborate" is understandable as it means that someone is explaining something in greater detail, and because of this "elaborated" means that someone explained something, not I believe the sense that you wanted. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, I'll replace it with "prepared".--Yannismarou (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the By
 * ?--Yannismarou (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies by the by was meant as a paragraph header not a question or criticism. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Citations and notes should be in three columns
 * There is no such rule!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed Look at Footnotes as a start, and yes there is no such rule but a standard that recommends! Although Template:Reflist recommends reflist 3 is not used many do so to create a list that is easier to see and follow. ref 2 is a minimum I would say. The idea is to make the encyclopedia (which wikipedia is) easy to read and follow. To quote ...The template  is an alternative, mostly used if there are many footnotes...  see Help:Footnotes Edmund Patrick –  confer 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edmund, excuse me for the tone, but you first look at the article, and try not to propose something which is already done! Reflist is of course used, and it is used from the first moment I started rewriting the article. But reflish does not show in Internet explorer; it looks only with Mozilla! And yes it is Reflist 2 which is used, because Ref 3 would make the notes (not necesserily the citations) a mess IMO! The links you propose to see are already known to me for about 2 years already!--Yannismarou (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I had better check my computer settings as I use Mozilla and the list went down and off the monitor screen. I thought it was to do with the timeline being alongside it, which is why I wondered if a horizontal one would be better. Edmund Patrick – confer 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That section is not a recommendation. All the forms of reflist and are equally acceptable; which is best for this article is a question of reader convenience only. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

An amazing piece of work. I am very impressed with the scholarship and effort. I hope the above are taken as they are given, constructive ways to add to the article. This should be a GA but does need to meet the criteria, and when it does it will be well on its way to FA.Edmund Patrick – confer 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Time line, can that be moved up, more images moved to the left in their respective sections or maybe the timeline horizontal at the beginning as an intro to the scope of the article?

My 2¢
I'm not going to address the specific GA criteria, as the editors above have done a good job of that. I'd like to point out two problems I saw right off the bat. First, the infobox doesn't need all of the commanders; just the most notable and important 3 to 5 for each side. I realize the article coveres a period of about 700 years, but we need to keep the infobox manageable and useful. Having every commander dilutes the information, making it difficult to discern who were the most important people. It would also be useful to separate the leaders who fought for the separate entities. Say, two leaders for the Roman Republic, two for the Empire, and two for the Byzantine Empire, and then 3 or so for the Parthians, and 3 or so for the Sassanids, and then have them separated in the infobox (see my example to the right, I just added the headers without paying attention to whether the men actually fought for the entities, but you get the idea.)

Also, there are far too many images in the article. Text sandwiching is to be avoided. It's bad enough on my laptop, which has a somewhat small screen, which makes the text narrower and has the effect of separating images that are too close together. I'd hate to see what it looks like on a decent-sized monitor. Removing the long template that has the timeline of the wars would help to free up space to move images around. Perhaps it would be best to spin that off into a separate article, a la Timeline of World War I and Timeline of World War II. Timeline of the Roman-Persian Wars? As Edmund states above, this is an impressive article. With some tweaking here and there, it will be well on its way to GA and higher ratings. Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Remarks

 * When we suggest some things in review, we must also be in accord with what Wikipedia remarks. For instance, citation 22 added by one of the reviewrs here is not in accord with MoS, since Template:cite web is not used.
 * You're right. I found it's not suitable and added citation 23. However it doesn't relate to the review process.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation templates exist for convenience only. What matters is what the reader sees. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there are too many images, but unfortunately I see that some were added after this review was initiated. For instance the Roman Empire's map caused this "sandwich effect", and I remove it.
 * I added some images. But it didn't relate to the review process. I thought those are better pictures. By the way, as you can see I passed the 6th criteria.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the infobox could be shorter, but I am not going to shorten it without the agreement of Zbuhr, and Cplakidas who have contributed to it. Initially I was as negative as you are to its size, but, seeing now with a cooler mind, I see that it offers a real treasure of information. I am not sure if it is a wise move to make it shorter after all.
 * I think it doesn't relate to GA review. However, I propose making a short infobox and put all details in a template. -- Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My view is that arbitarily selecting a handful of individuals and removing the rest would be actively misleading. Any such selection would be necessarily arbitrary, inflating the importance of some stages of the conflict and underplaying that of others. Part of the reason I originally stepped in to expand the list of commanders was that the time it was severely unbalanced in this way. If it is to give a chronologically balanced impression it cannot be much shorter than it is now. It seems to me that the two sensible options would be to retain it as it is (my preference), or else to remove all the names and simply provide a link to a template. A halfway-house would amount to the worst of both worlds.Zburh (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the prose is concerned, I have asked from Ceoil and other native English speakers (some of the best copy-editors around) to do their best on the article. Now, commenting on a comment: I am also against short sentences, but this is a summary article of a period of 1.000 years. When you have to summarize such a long period of time, and a loooooong list of events, it is inevitable to have at a certain level such a kind of prose. Again, I repeat that I am not a native English speaker, but I have asked the best copy-editors to look at the article, and prepare it in terms of prose for WP:FAC.
 * Why some very good maps, like the one made by Giorgos Tzimas and praised by many editors about Julian's expedition was removed? And why CPlacidas' map of the borders after Anastasian War were also removed? And the image of Valerian's capture replaced. Why? I strongly disagree.
 * This issue doesn't relate to the review process. We can discuss about it on the talk page of the article, later.-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You ask me to clarify who Pacorus is, when it is mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph that it is Pacorus I ?! And no wikilinking is needed. Pacorus is already wikilnked as Pacorus I, as I stated before, in the beginning of the paragraph!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have misunderstood here how the template is used. This template is asked in order to verify assertions, assessments, estimations; not in order to verify the obvious! Therefore, the two  added by the GA reviewer are IMO of questionable value. With the first one, it is asked to me to verify that Constantinople was sieged and brought almost to catastroph by the Avars. But this is a historical event beyond any doubt; a universally accepted historical event. So, verify what exactly? After all, the sentence for which verification is asked contains already two citations! By adding one more, we'll make it almost impossible for the reader to go through it. Anyway, I'll try to rearrange the citations, in order to make clear that everything is properly cited. After all, it is almost incomprehensible for me to ask me for more citations in an article of medium size, which already contains 114 citations, each one citing both primary and secondary sources. I'd also suggest the reviewers here and everybody else interesting about how an article should be properly cited to read by essay here. The same comments stand for the second tag which was also added.--Yannismarou (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Result

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I completed my review and now wait to know for Edmund's view.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Khoday namag
The principal sources for the early Sassanid period are not contemporary. I think it's not correct. Khosrow I, who was interested in history, resolved to have the Iranian past recorded in a great national history. Scholars at his court compiled such a work and called it Khoday namag “Book of Lords/Kings”. True to the practice of oral historiography, however, the compilers neglected the use of documentary sources such as the Middle Persian inscriptions of Ardashr I, Shapur I, Shapur II, and Narsi, and mingled the memory of recent history with remote past and hoary legends. The Khoday namag is lost, but Arab-Persian works derived from it show that it was heavily influenced by oral historiography and mingled all sorts of traditions. In any event, by the end of the 6th century, a national history of Iran existed in the royal archive at Ctesiphon, from which Agathias indirectly derived his account of the Sasanids history. Other historical works also came to be compiled. One was an autobiography of Khosrow I, of which excerpts are preserved in Moskuya’s Tajāreb al-omam. A slightly later work is about the trial of Khosrow II, which details the charges brought against him as well as his responses.

Thus Agathias and Tabari(who was Persian and written in Arabic) have used Sassanids historical accounts.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the excellent article, but it actually verifies what I wrote: "These were isolated attempts at approaching written historiography, however. By the end of the 4th century, even the practice of carving rock reliefs and leaving short inscriptions was abandoned. Instead oral historiography flourished." So, until the 4th century the best we have is some inscriptions. And then nothing! And Khosrau is not an early Sasanian, and his compilation is definitely not a "contemporary source" in terms of the Early Sasanian period. But the article is indeed very very useful, and I'll definitely use it!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BELOW COPIED FROM ARTICLE TALK PAGE AS THIS IS PART OF GA REVIEW Edmund Patrick – confer 12:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil asked me to drop by
...for a copyedit in preparation for WP:FAC. Feel free to revert any of my edits, of course, but I'm going to pawn off some of the work on you guys. My general impression is that this is excellent, excellent writing. Note: after the first few sections, i stopped reading for content.
 * WP:MOS needs "&amp;nbsp;" between any number and unit, symbol or abbreviation that it goes with, such as 92 BC.
 * Fixed I hope.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need nbsp in for instance infoboxes and captions, usually, but I still get a lot of hits when I search for "(space)AD"...36 AD, 63 AD, etc. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * Fixing anything I fing!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:MOS and for instance User_talk:Tony1: "Definitely 'Russian–Japanese war' must have an en dash." Current consensus, and WP:MOS for a couple of years now, says to stick an en-dash (&amp;ndash; or –) in "Roman–Persian Wars", and WP:FAC will probably require that the page be moved to that title, with a redirect to the new page from the current page. Not everyone agrees, btw; some folks are happier with hyphens.  But it won't pass WP:FAC that way."Greco-Roman", on the other hand, keeps the hyphen, because the hyphen is used to mean "and".
 * en dash added. I put it not only to the title but to Roman–Persian throughout the article. Have I done the right thing?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still getting hits on "Roman-Persian" (with a hyphen). - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * I suppose Roman-Parthian and Roman-Sassanid or Byzantine-Sassanid go the same way?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a hyphen on Wikipedia means there is some connection between the two things; if that's not what you're saying, if there is no such thing as a "Roman-Sassanid", and you're simply talking about a conflict between the two, then on Wikipedia, use an en-dash. (Not everyone agrees.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard "from 632 AD" occasionally; is this a British or Irish thing? I usually hear "from 632 AD on" or a different preposition.
 * I added the "on". What about "From the fourth century AD", does it also need the "on".
 * I hear "from the fourth century AD" more often than I hear "from 632 AD", so it's better, but I'd still prefer "on", or "Starting in the fourth century AD" is also fine. On the other hand, some people think "from...on" is too informal, and prefer "Starting in..."  I do hear "from 632 AD" more from historians than from others, so maybe the issue isn't so much that it's rare as than it's "jargony". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)


 * Not sure what to do with the sentence that starts "In 53 BC" and maybe the one that starts "Soon Labienius"; FAC doesn't like that many commas in a sentence.
 * I rephrased "In 53 BC". Any better? About "Soon Labienius" I do not know either what to do. It does not look that bad to me!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted 2 commas from the first; we'll leave the second one alone. It will probably be fine. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)


 * Captions should have no period/full stop if they're a short sentence fragment; otherwise, they need periods/full stops at the end of each sentence or fragment.
 * I think the captions are now in accord with Captions.
 * They're much better. I don't make any guarantees, because I don't keep up with image issues carefully.  Btw, one of your images is missing now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * Yea, my goofing! My experience with FAC says that this is not a major issue.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "However, in that year uprisings erupted": which year? You mentioned two years. And this sounds a little better as "However, uprisings erupted in..." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarified.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look in on Monday 7th July and give the original reviewer Seyyed my thoughts on prose etc. I agree with the comments of Dan above. read through, check and I reckon it could be completed. Edmund Patrick – confer 12:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dank, for all you hard work. I'll go through all your comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome. More comments to follow, I'm about halfway through.  "...Romans in 524/525 AD.[44] By 526-527 AD..."  The problem here is that some people use "/" to mean something different from "-", and some don't.  If you mean the same thing, and it seems that you do, then you should use one or the other consistently, probably "-". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I goofed...use en-dashes in a range of years, not hyphens. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * Bfffffffff .... MoS was always what I hated most going for FAC. But I must admit I never had such a comprehensive and detailed MoS review like yours.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Most people will capitalize "king Gubazes" but not "Gubazes, king of..." at FAC. Capitalization rules are hard, and not everyone agrees. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * I kept throughout the article all the kings and emperors without capitals, trying to be consistent. Maybe you are correct to have them all capitalized.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "the city was finally subjected in 551"...did you mean subjugated? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * Yeap!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Persian royal baggage was captured": all I can say is, I read the sentence to John, who reads a lot of history, and he laughed, which is probably not the reaction you want. I don't know how to reword it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * Who's John?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell him I rephrased!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * John is my spouse/partner. I read things from Wikipedia to him whenever I get the chance...he's a better writer than I am, maybe I can get him to start writing articles.
 * How can he not write? Isn't he tempted to? How can anybody resist?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Khosrau I died early the next year, defeated after a long string of victories." I didn't like "so many victories", but I still have a question; was he defeated in battle, or by death? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * No, by death. And Edmund also didn't like it.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will add "by death" and "on the field" to make it clear. Who's Edmund?
 * A GA reviewer above. Nothing intriguing!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "who sailed to Constantinople from Carthage with an icon affixed to the prow of his ship": iconography had religious and political significance at the time, and I'm guessing this is what is meant, but it would be better if the reader didn't have to guess. I think it would be better either to delete "icon", or give a short description of the significance. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
 * You are correct about the religious significance, but I guess there is no reason to go into such detail, so I;ll prefer the first solution.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to do about the link to Byzantine–Arab Wars; I've asked at WT:GAN. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem solved; Geometry guy moved the page so that the title now has an en-dash. If there's no strong reaction, then I'll move the other page in the same category. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:How_to_copy-edit for the reasoning behind always putting the period/full stop outside the quote marks for quoted sentence fragments. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "When the two great powers of the time, Rome and Parthia...": Are you saying the Han Dynasty was not a great power? From the Wikipedia article: "The reign of the Han Dynasty, lasting over 400 years, is commonly considered within China to be one of the greatest periods in the history of China." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason to use AD at all is to be clear which is meant, which is absolutely necessary in the beginning of the article. After Augustus, or perhaps Nero, however, once per section should be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sept, good point. Okay, I'm done here.  The only thing I didn't do was Strategies and military tactics, which had a lot of language that didn't sound right that I didn't know how to fix.  Again, I was looking for things that caught my eye; the flow of the language seemed good, but I wasn't reading carefully for comprehension. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In some sections like "Strategies and military tactics" there is again a mixture of ADs and BCs; that is why I preferred to use throughout the article the BCs and ADs, so as to avoid any chance of confusion for the reader of the article. But, since there seems to be a consensus towards Sept's proposal, I'll gladly implement it.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot to thank Dank for the great and copious work.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion: (report back as requested)
An amazing amount of work done on this article especially by you (Seyyed) in the review, Dan / Dank55 in prose etc and Yannismarou as one of the editors. Me; I reckon I got off lightly. Anyway as lead review it is up to you (Seyyed)for a final decision. I would say pass now, especially with all the work Dan / Dank55 has undertaken. One thing there seems to be a loose web link in the Roman–Persian_Wars section. You may understand why? It seems other editors have "found" the article now as well so there maybe more input. I know that a editor did not totally agree to a GA nomination, I have to say that the article has improved greatly, and is on its way to FA status because of this review. This is an example of how useful good GA reviewing can be. Edmund Patrick – confer 09:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Edmund. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also do not know what is going on with this loose web link. There is an [1] out of nowhere! It is my duty to thank all the reviewers and the editors who contributed during this GAC.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a stray ref tag, I deleted it. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 7, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.-- Seyyed(t-c) 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)